Affirmative Consent Laws: How Patient Permission for Medical Substitution Actually Works

Affirmative Consent Laws: How Patient Permission for Medical Substitution Actually Works

There’s a big mix-up going on. You’ve probably heard about affirmative consent in the context of sexual assault laws - the "yes means yes" rule. But now you’re seeing it tied to medical care, like when a family member makes decisions for an unconscious patient. That’s not how it works. And confusing these two things can actually hurt people.

What affirmative consent really means

Affirmative consent laws were created to change how we talk about sexual activity. They don’t say "no means no." They say "only yes means yes." That means consent has to be clear, active, and ongoing. You can’t assume it. You can’t rely on silence. You need words or actions that show someone is willingly agreeing - and they can take it back at any time.

These laws started showing up in U.S. states around 2014, especially on college campuses. California’s Senate Bill 967 was one of the first. It made it clear: if someone is passed out, drunk, or scared into silence, that’s not consent. It’s not about whether they fought back. It’s about whether they said or did something that meant "yes." This was a big shift. Before, many systems assumed consent unless someone said "no." That put the burden on the victim to resist. Affirmative consent flipped that. It put the responsibility on the person initiating the activity to make sure they had real, ongoing permission.

Medical consent is a completely different system

Now, let’s talk about medical care. When a patient can’t speak for themselves - maybe they’re in a coma, have dementia, or are too sick to understand - doctors don’t use affirmative consent rules. They don’t wait for a family member to say "yes" out loud before giving a treatment.

Instead, they follow something called informed consent - and when the patient can’t consent, they use substituted judgment.

Informed consent means the doctor explains what’s wrong, what the treatment is, what the risks and benefits are, what other options exist, and what happens if you do nothing. The patient has to understand this, and then they say yes. It’s not just signing a form. It’s a conversation.

But when the patient can’t understand or speak? That’s where substituted judgment comes in. The law says: who would make the decision for this person? Usually, it’s a family member, a spouse, or someone named in an advance directive. But here’s the key: they’re not supposed to decide what they think is best. They’re supposed to ask: "What would this patient have wanted?"

For example: if someone spent their whole life saying they never wanted to be kept alive on machines, and now they’re in a coma, the surrogate shouldn’t say, "I’d want to try everything." They should say, "They made it clear they didn’t want that."

Why you can’t mix the two

Some people think, "If we need clear yeses for sex, why not for medicine?" It sounds fair. But the systems are built for totally different purposes.

In sexual situations, the goal is to prevent coercion. People need to feel safe saying no without fear. That’s why affirmative consent requires active, verbal, or physical affirmation.

In medicine, the goal is to respect autonomy while allowing urgent care to happen. If a patient has a heart attack and no one can answer whether they’d want CPR, doctors can’t wait for someone to say "yes" out loud. They have to act based on what the patient would likely have chosen - or, if that’s unknown, what’s in their best interest.

And here’s the real problem: if you tried to apply affirmative consent to medical substitution, you’d create dangerous delays. Imagine a parent rushing their child to the ER after a car crash. The child is unconscious. The doctor says, "We need to operate now to save their life." The parent is in shock. They don’t say "yes" clearly. Do you wait? Do you risk their life because they didn’t give a verbal yes?

That’s why the law doesn’t work that way.

An emergency room scene with a child being rushed in, contrasting delayed affirmative consent with immediate medical decision-making.

Who makes decisions when a patient can’t speak?

In most U.S. states, including California, there’s a clear order for who can make medical decisions for someone who lacks capacity:

  • Someone named in a legally valid advance directive (like a living will or healthcare proxy)
  • A court-appointed guardian
  • Spouse or domestic partner
  • Adult children
  • Parents
  • Other close relatives
This isn’t random. It’s based on who’s most likely to know the patient’s values. The law assumes the spouse or child knows better than a cousin or friend.

There are exceptions, too. In California, minors as young as 12 can consent to treatment for STDs, HIV, or substance abuse - even if their parents disagree. That’s not substitution. That’s recognizing a young person’s right to control their own body in specific situations.

What happens if no one knows what the patient would want?

Sometimes, there’s no advance directive. No one really knows the patient’s wishes. Maybe they never talked about it. Maybe they were young, or isolated.

In those cases, the law shifts to the "best interest" standard. The surrogate makes the decision based on what a reasonable person would choose under those circumstances. Is the treatment likely to help? Is it burdensome? Is it just prolonging suffering?

This isn’t perfect. But it’s the system we have. And it’s designed to protect patients who can’t speak for themselves - not to create legal hurdles that delay care.

An elderly person writing an advance directive with family, surrounded by memories and folk-art inspired elements.

Why this confusion exists

You’re not alone if you’re confused. A 2023 survey at the University of Colorado Denver found that 78% of undergraduates mixed up affirmative consent and medical consent. They thought "yes means yes" applied to both.

That’s because the words sound similar. Both use the word "consent." Both involve personal autonomy. Both are about rights.

But that’s where the similarity ends. One is about preventing sexual violence. The other is about protecting medical rights and enabling life-saving care.

Even medical schools have to teach this distinction. Students often get it wrong on exams. One Reddit thread from r/medschool in January 2023 had over a thousand upvotes for a comment that said: "Affirmative consent is for sexual activity policies on campus; medical consent uses different standards based on patient capacity and disclosure requirements."

What’s changing - and what’s not

In 2023, the California Supreme Court made it crystal clear in a case called Doe v. Smith: affirmative consent laws apply only to sexual misconduct cases under Title IX and education codes. They don’t touch medical decisions.

The American Medical Association also updated its guidelines in 2023 to warn doctors: "Do not apply sexual consent standards to medical decision-making." Why? Because it creates confusion, delays care, and misunderstands the legal foundation of medical ethics.

Meanwhile, medical consent laws keep evolving - but in their own direction. The federal CARE Act of 2023 focused on improving advance directives and making sure people know their rights. It didn’t mention affirmative consent once.

The #MeToo movement changed how we talk about sex. That’s good. But it didn’t change how we talk about medicine.

What you should do

If you care about your own medical future, don’t wait for an emergency. Write down your wishes. Name someone you trust to speak for you. Talk to them. Not just once - have the conversation again every few years.

You don’t need a fancy lawyer. A simple advance directive form from your state’s health department will do. It’s free. It’s legal. And it gives your family peace of mind.

If you’re a caregiver, don’t guess. Look for clues. Did they say they didn’t want to be hooked up to machines? Did they refuse a certain treatment before? Did they talk about quality of life over quantity? Those are your guides.

And if someone tells you that medical substitution needs "affirmative consent," correct them gently. It’s not a technicality. It’s a matter of life and death.

Is affirmative consent the same as informed consent in medicine?

No. Affirmative consent applies only to sexual activity and requires clear, ongoing, verbal or physical agreement. Informed consent in medicine requires a doctor to explain risks, benefits, and alternatives so the patient can make a voluntary decision. When a patient can’t consent, substituted judgment or best interest standards are used - not affirmative consent.

Can a family member just say "yes" to surgery for an unconscious patient?

They don’t say "yes" to give permission. They’re supposed to make the decision based on what the patient would have wanted. If no one knows, the doctor uses the "best interest" standard. The law doesn’t require a verbal yes - it requires a thoughtful decision based on the patient’s known values.

What if I don’t have an advance directive?

If you don’t have one, the law follows a legal order of who can decide for you - usually spouse, adult children, parents, then other relatives. But without knowing your wishes, they might guess wrong. That’s why writing it down matters. It gives them confidence and protects you.

Can a minor give consent for medical treatment?

Yes, in many cases. In California, minors aged 12 and older can consent to treatment for sexually transmitted infections, HIV, substance abuse, and mental health services. This is not substitution - it’s recognizing their right to control their own body in specific areas, even if their parents disagree.

Why don’t hospitals use "yes means yes" for medical decisions?

Because medical emergencies don’t wait for conversations. If a patient is in cardiac arrest, doctors need to act immediately. Waiting for someone to say "yes" could kill them. The medical system is built on respecting past wishes, not forcing verbal confirmation in crisis. Affirmative consent is designed for situations where people have time and control - not for life-or-death emergencies.

12 Comments

  • Image placeholder

    Constantine Vigderman

    December 13, 2025 AT 23:43

    Bro this is so important lol i just saw someone on twitter say we should apply "yes means yes" to hospitals and i almost choked on my coffee ☕️😂
    Like nooo, if my dad has a heart attack and the doc asks "do you consent?" while he's flatlining, i'm not gonna pause to say "YES" in a clear voice. That's not consent, that's a sitcom.
    Medical stuff is about what the person WOULD'VE wanted, not what you can scream in a panic. Stop mixing metaphors pls.

  • Image placeholder

    Webster Bull

    December 15, 2025 AT 23:28

    Exactly. Consent isn't one-size-fits-all.
    Sex is about autonomy in the moment. Medicine is about honoring autonomy over time.
    One needs active yeses. The other needs remembered values.
    Confusing them helps nobody.

  • Image placeholder

    Scott Butler

    December 16, 2025 AT 12:11

    Typical woke logic. You people take a good idea from one area and smash it into another where it doesn't belong. Now we're gonna need a signed waiver before they put in an IV? Next they'll want a notarized form before they stitch up a kid's knee.
    Pathetic.

  • Image placeholder

    Michael Gardner

    December 16, 2025 AT 15:05

    Wait, so you're saying we can't apply the same ethical standard to both? That's... weird. If autonomy matters in one, why not the other? Maybe the problem isn't the analogy-it's that medicine hasn't evolved enough to match modern ethics.
    Or maybe you're just defending the status quo because change is scary.

  • Image placeholder

    Tyrone Marshall

    December 17, 2025 AT 17:03

    Hey everyone, just wanted to say this post is super helpful. I’m a nursing student and we had a whole module on this last semester.
    It’s wild how many people think "consent" means the same thing everywhere. Even some of my professors mixed it up at first.
    But this breakdown? Perfect. Seriously, share this with your family. It could save someone’s life-or at least spare them a nightmare decision.
    And if you haven’t filled out an advance directive yet? Do it today. It’s free. It’s easy. And your loved ones will thank you.

  • Image placeholder

    kevin moranga

    December 19, 2025 AT 05:06

    Man, I love how this post just cuts through the noise. I had this exact conversation with my mom last week after she saw some viral TikTok about "medical affirmative consent"-she was convinced we were all gonna die because doctors couldn't get verbal approval before giving insulin.
    So I sat her down, pulled up this exact article, and we talked about how my grandpa always said he didn't want machines if he was gone.
    She cried. Then she printed out the California advance directive form and filled it out right then.
    Thanks for making something so heavy feel... doable. Honestly? This is the kind of content that fixes the world, one family at a time. 🙏❤️

  • Image placeholder

    Alvin Montanez

    December 19, 2025 AT 21:16

    Let me be blunt: this is what happens when you let college kids design laws. Affirmative consent was already a joke-now you want to turn the ER into a campus Title IX hearing?
    What’s next? Do we need a consent form before they give aspirin? Before they put on oxygen? Before they turn the defibrillator on?
    These aren’t just "different systems." They’re different worlds. One is about power, control, and trauma. The other is about survival, science, and duty.
    Stop trying to politicize medicine. People are dying because you can’t let go of your ideology long enough to save a life.

  • Image placeholder

    Richard Ayres

    December 21, 2025 AT 20:27

    This is one of the clearest explanations I’ve ever read on the distinction between these two concepts. I work in healthcare policy, and I’ve seen firsthand how this confusion leads to legal risk, delayed care, and unnecessary family conflict.
    It’s not about whether one system is "better"-it’s about whether we’re using the right tool for the job.
    Using affirmative consent in medical contexts would violate the principle of beneficence-doing good-by introducing preventable harm through delay.
    Thank you for this. I’m sharing it with my entire department.

  • Image placeholder

    Sheldon Bird

    December 23, 2025 AT 00:40

    Big respect to whoever wrote this. 🙌
    I’ve been a caregiver for my aunt with dementia for 5 years, and this stuff kept me up at night.
    One time, the hospital almost withheld antibiotics because the social worker said we "didn’t have clear verbal consent."
    We had her living will, her handwritten notes, her voice recordings saying she didn’t want to be "kept alive like a vegetable." But they still hesitated.
    Thank you for validating that we were right to push back.
    Keep doing this work. It matters.

  • Image placeholder

    Karen Mccullouch

    December 23, 2025 AT 14:51

    OH MY GOD I KNEW IT. I KNEW THIS WAS A LIBERAL TRAP. 😭
    They want to turn EVERYTHING into a sexual consent issue because they can’t handle real problems.
    Now they’re coming for your dying parent’s last breaths?!
    They’ll make you sign a consent form before they let you hold their hand in the ICU. I swear to god. This is the slippery slope to communist healthcare.
    STOP IT. STOP IT NOW. 🤬

  • Image placeholder

    Jennifer Taylor

    December 24, 2025 AT 22:21

    Okay but what if the family member is abusive? What if the "spouse" is the one who caused the coma? What if they’re lying about what the patient wanted? What if they’re just trying to inherit the house?
    And what about trans people whose families disown them? What if their only living relative is their toxic parent who refuses to accept their identity?
    And what if the "best interest" standard just means the doctor decides for you because they don’t like your politics?
    THIS SYSTEM IS BROKEN. WE NEED TO FIX IT.
    Maybe affirmative consent IS the answer. Maybe we need to force everyone to say "yes" out loud-even if they’re unconscious-through AI voice recognition and blockchain records.
    …I’m not joking. Think about it.

  • Image placeholder

    Shelby Ume

    December 25, 2025 AT 03:08

    Thank you for this meticulously researched and profoundly necessary breakdown.
    As someone who has worked in bioethics for over two decades, I can tell you that the conflation of affirmative consent with substituted judgment is not merely a misunderstanding-it is a dangerous erosion of the foundational principles of medical autonomy and beneficence.
    The fact that 78% of undergraduates confuse these concepts speaks to a systemic failure in civic education.
    That said, I applaud the author for articulating the distinction with such clarity.
    May this post be widely circulated, cited in medical curricula, and used to train emergency responders, social workers, and family members alike.
    For the sake of every patient who cannot speak for themselves-this matters.

Write a comment

*

*

*